Comments by "ncwordman" (@ncwordman) on "Geraldo Brandishes Musket In Debate Over Guns (Video)" video.

@ericnix6266 No, that's half a fact. Here's the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." See how it starts with well regulated militia? The right of the people is because, waaaaaaaaay back then, there was no national guard, and no police. So all the people were responsible for protecting themselves and each other from Indians, bears, etc. But in 1903, the national guard officially replaced the militias of each state. That's why the militias aren't called out for state emergencies, the national guard is. So the whole concept is antiquated.
5
Does the AR-15 not being technically an assault rifle have ANYTHING to do with what's being talked about here? Because your post doesn't seem to address what's being discussed. I guess this is your moment to display your knowledge though.
4
Ever notice how people who argue against common sense gun laws are barking mad? Truly gone fishing? And the dimmest bulb on the Christmas tree? Really, they are all obviously the kind of people who shouldn't have guns.
4
@senioMseD Interesting point. I guess that's the beauty of America: You can defend what's killing innocent people because of freedom.
3
@senioMseD The national guard replaced the militias in each state in 1903. Notice how each state has a national guard? That's why. So even the militia part of the 2nd amendment is antiquated.
3
@id10t98 That's right. The national guard replaced militias, in any official capacity, a long time ago.
3
The second amendment wasn't against cannons. That much is true. What isn't true is that "many people had cannons." If by "people" you mean privateers, then yes, privateers owned cannons. Or they were supplied by the government, or they stole them, to be precise. (I just looked this up. Feel free to prove me wrong.)
2
@barracuda861 And you're even more right than I am. :)
2
Ever notice how people who argue against common sense gun laws, like Tobi there, are barking mad? Truly gone fishing? And the dimmest bulb on the Christmas tree? Really, they are all obviously the kind of people who shouldn't have guns.
2
@poopypantsbiden5688 "Come and try to take em." I wish somebody would, because you're obviously too unstable to have them. But I doubt you do. It's much more likely you're just a troll.
2
@picolascage8123 I didn't say that. Nor do I agree with that. But insane sociopaths shouldn't be allowed the responsibility of gun ownership, because they aren't responsible.
2
@ericnix6266 As for the comma, let's face it: The second amendment is the worst sentence in the world. I'm a writer. I double-majored in English and Creative Writing: I know about commas. Let's look at this thing. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." First, it takes a moment to find the verb. The subject is obviously militia. This is talking about the militia, which isn't a thing anymore. But after the subject we get two prepositional phrases, making it difficult to even remember what the subject was, by the time we get to the verb. So it should read like this: "A well regulated militia shall not be infringed." But they wanted to show that the militia should be well regulated. Right? So are today's private gun owners well regulated? No. They're on their own. They don't even want any gun REGULATION. See that? Then they wanted to show that the well regulated militia was necessary. So we get the first prepositional phrase. But then something weird happens. Remember our subject verb agreement from before? Check this out: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." When you remove that comma, you get what gun nuts see as the 2nd amendment. Right? See that? But, as you said, the comma is important. So what do we have instead? We have two prepositional phrases whose job is to elaborate on the subject, which is the militia--which is now the National Guard. The right of the people to bear arms was because they were needed for the militia. Not just because. But then we get to the actual root of the gun nuts' real perspective: tyrannical government. You don't know squat about commas, or care about militias, or how those militias are meant to protect us--i.e., we the people, i.e, the country and its rightful government. You want to prepare in case the U.S. government becomes tyrannical. See, we aren't under foreign rule anymore, and haven't been since the Revolutionary War. We have never been invaded since then either. So all these people are dying because of your paranoia--and not just you, but millions of paranoid Rambo wannabes.
2
@lynnrunningdeerB4 I'm glad someone appreciated all that writing I did. Thank you. :)
2
Problem is that irresponsible people are not responsible. Right? So they can't be responsible gun owners, but are still as unlimited in what they can buy as responsible gun owners. They need to be treated differently, because they're different.
2
I don't know what point you're trying to make, so I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading that. You have a future as a writer. :) (Especially the "Tally ho lads" remark. lol!)
2
Canons weren't illegal, if that's what you mean. But that's a far cry from saying they were permitted. And that's because, apart from the army (or militias in those days), the only people who had them were privateers. So Billy Joe Jim Bob didn't go to the cannon show and buy a cannon. If Billy Joe was a pirate back then, and made a deal with the government to be a pirate only for them and against their enemies, then he became a privateer. And in that case, he was either supplied with cannons, or more likely stole them from the enemy (which is what pirates usually did).
1
@Mitch Conner I don't think you even know what logic is. You certainly aren't using any.
1
@B Olek I see, Dr. Spock. You can then explain his extrapolations and deductions, then. You can show each logical step of his reasoning then. Actually, I'm surprised you didn't do that when you posted. Well, not really. But feel free to do so now. You can start by defining logic. I await your dissertation.
1
@B Olek I see you didn't explain the logic. Again. Know why? Because you can't. Know why? Because it's not logical. Know why? Because it's a false equivalence. Oh, and I've read the dictionary cover to cover, unabridged. So, there's that.
1
@mitchconner86 I already did. What you wrote is a false equivalence. That's a logical fallacy. Know why? Because you admit that your comparison is illogical, or at least you implied it. Remember? "Through this logic...." But then you went ahead as if your comparison made a good point. That's why it's a fallacy. See that? It's self-contradictory.
1
@mitchconner86 "Ok I’ll be the bigger man and let you have your moment. Enjoy it. It’s the only win you’ll ever have in life." Doesn't sound like you're being the bigger man at all. Sounds like you're being everything you claim I am. Right? Look over what you wrote again. But you couldn't let it slide. Could you? Why? You know why. Enjoy that. :)
1
@ericnix6266 Holy copy/paste, Batman. Just ignored everything I wrote, and posted a bunch of quotes. I think I'm done with you. You're a waste of time. Muted.
1
@deanmeyer1815 You and @Nature admirer are missing the point...by a mile. You're expecting people to have to defend themselves against these crazy shooters, when these crazy shooters don't even have to be a thing: at least not the highest number in the world.
1
@vpnhp1524 I'm sure you think that's very clever and original. It's neither. It's what is called a false equivalency, a logical fallacy. But I guess it was fun for you to write? You got to feel smart for a minute.
1
@vpnhp1524 I didn't copy and paste anything. So, wrong there. And it's actually a false equivalence. So not a "direct equivalent." So, wrong there.
1
@nunyabizness9045 Okay, so since the founders saw changes within their lifetime, you're then assuming and asserting that they saw all changes throughout time? You can't have any concept of the things that you don't have any concept of. Right? Read that again.
1
@nunyabizness9045 "Try to have a little comprehension" I am comprehending. You aren't. Let's look at what you wrote there: "of course they didn't see all the changes....The fact of the matter is the founding fathers were fine with the changes." See? How can they be fine with what they didn't see? And how could they foresee, if they didn't see? If brains were dynamite, you couldn't blow your nose.
1
@nunyabizness9045 You could still buy dynamite in hardware stores through the mid-20th century. How's that for a try? Face it, dude. A box of rocks is smarter than you.
1
@nunyabizness9045 "Keep trying" What do you think I'm trying to do, exactly? Why do you keep saying that? The OP wrote a false equivalency. I pointed it out. You claimed the founders could see the changes to firearms in their lifetime, and somehow relate that (in your mind) to them being okay with AR-15s. Now you're throwing in everything but the kitchen sink, hopefully to distract from all the rest. It isn't working. You.Are.Wrong. And I can only assume it hurts your brain when you try to think.
1